86 Cal.App.5th 314
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- On June 22, 2020, LAPD officers stopped a parked car for expired registration and smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana coming from inside.
- Officer Zendejas contacted the driver (Castro) and observed two known minors as passengers; Castro told the officer he was 20 and had smoked marijuana two hours earlier.
- Officers ordered the occupants out, handcuffed them for officer safety, and conducted a narcotics-related search; they found a Xanax pill and a round of 9mm in the center console and, in the trunk, a loaded, unregistered, serial-numberless 9mm handgun.
- A magistrate initially granted Castro’s motion to suppress (relying on In re D.W.) and dismissed the case; the district attorney successfully moved to compel reinstatement of the complaint.
- The trial court rejected Castro’s renewed suppression claims, concluding the automobile exception applied because the odor of marijuana, Castro’s admission, and all occupants’ being under 21 gave probable cause to search the vehicle. Castro pleaded no contest to carrying a loaded, unregistered handgun and appealed the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless search of Castro’s vehicle fell within the automobile exception | People: Odor of marijuana + Castro’s admission + all occupants under 21 provided probable cause to search the vehicle | Castro: Warrantless search did not meet automobile-exception requirements; suppression required | Court held automobile exception applied; probable cause existed and search was reasonable |
| Whether Proposition 64 precludes odor-based vehicle searches | People: Prop 64 legalizes possession only for ≥21, so it does not bar searches where occupants are minors; odor + admission supported probable cause | Castro: Post-Prop 64 police may not search a vehicle merely because they smell marijuana | Court held Prop 64 is inapplicable to minors; the rule protecting lawful possession applies only to those ≥21, so odor-based probable cause remained valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (warrant requirement and established exceptions to the Fourth Amendment)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (probable cause assessed by objective facts and circumstances)
- People v. McGee, 53 Cal.App.5th 796 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (review standard for magistrate findings and scope of vehicle searches under the automobile exception)
- People v. Strasburg, 148 Cal.App.4th 1052 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (odor of marijuana can provide probable cause to search a vehicle)
- Blakes v. Superior Court, 72 Cal.App.5th 904 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (Proposition 64 makes lawfully possessed cannabis non-contraband for persons 21 and older)
- In re D.W., 13 Cal.App.5th 1249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (search-incident-to-arrest context; relied on by magistrate but deemed inapplicable here)
- People v. Fews, 27 Cal.App.5th 553 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (automobile-exception search may be valid even if the underlying offense is non-arrestable)